YELIYUR MILK PRODUCERS CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED vs. CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BENGALURU -1
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that the respondents adopted a hyper-technical approach in rejecting the petitioner's application for condonation of delay. The Court found that the inability to file returns within the prescribed period was due to the prevailing Covid-19 pandemic, which constituted bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances, and sufficient cause, leading to genuine hardship as per Circular No. 9/2015. The Court reasoned that failure to appreciate these factors resulted in an erroneous conclusion. By adopting a justice-oriented approach and considering the valid grounds pleaded, the Court deemed it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned order, condone the delay of 17 days, and direct the respondents to accept the returns filed by the petitioner for AY 2021-22. The respondents were granted liberty to verify the petitioner's claim and proceed further in accordance with law.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Yaliyur Milk Producers Co Operative Society Limited, filed a writ petition seeking to quash an order dated 16.12.2024 passed by the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (Respondent No. 1). This order rejected the petitioner's application filed under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, seeking condonation of a 17-day delay in filing its income tax returns for the Assessment Year 2021-22. The petitioner contended that the delay was due to bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances, and sufficient cause, specifically citing the prevailing Covid-19 pandemic and genuine hardship.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the rejection of the petitioner's application for condonation of delay in filing income tax returns for AY 2021-22 under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was erroneous, considering the prevailing Covid-19 pandemic and the petitioner's claim of bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances, and genuine hardship? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the delay of 17 days in filing its Income Tax Returns for AY 2021-22 was due to the prevailing Covid-19 pandemic, bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances, and sufficient cause, constituting genuine hardship as contemplated in Circular No. 9/2015 dated 09.06.2015. Therefore, the respondent committed an error in rejecting the condonation application. Revenue's Contention: The respondents supported the impugned order and submitted that the petition lacked merit and was liable to be dismissed.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
- 1 -
NC: 2025:KHC:15383 WP No. 7851 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.7851 OF 2025 (T-IT) BETWEEN:
YELIYUR MILK PRODUCERS CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED (UNDER CO-OPERATIVE SOCITY ACT, 1959) REPRESENTED BY ITS CEO MR. KESHAVA Y N, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, #348, YALIYURU VILLAGE AND POST, CHANNARAYAPATTANA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL- 562110.
…PETITIONER (BY SRI. BALRAM R RAO, ADVOCATE)
AND:
CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BENGALURU -1 CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING,
QUEENS ROAD,
BENGALURU – 560 001.
INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD NO.6(1)(1), BMTC BUILDING,
GAMES VILLAGE, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU – 560 095. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M. DILIP, ADVOCATE)
THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS OF THE PETITIONER’S CASE AND AFTER EXAMINING THE LEGALITY AND VALIDITY THEREOF BE PLEASED TO QUASH AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 119(2)(b) OF THE ACT DATED 16/12/2024 IN DIN AND ORDER NO. ITBA/COM/M/17/2024- 25/1071778180(1) (ANNX-D) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2021-22 AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka
- 2 -
NC: 2025:KHC:15383 WP No. 7851 of 2025
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
In this petition, petitioner seeks quashing of the impugned order at Annexure–D dated 16.12.2024 passed by the respondent No.1, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 119(2)(b) seeking condonation of delay of 17 days in filing the income tax returns in relation to the Assessment Year 2021-22 was rejected by the respondent No.1.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record. 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that in relation to the aforesaid Assessment Year 2021-22, the petitioner filed returns after the prescribed period along with the application seeking condonation of delay of 17 days in filing the returns interalia contending that due to prevailing Covid-19 pandemic and owing to bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause, the petitioner was not in a position to file the returns within the prescribed period. It was contended that the delay in filing the I.T. returns was due to genuine hardship as
- 3 -
NC: 2025:KHC:15383 WP No. 7851 of 2025
contemplated in the Circular No.9/2015 dated 09.06.2015 and as such, the respondent committed an error in rejecting the application for condonation of delay filed by the petitioner under Section 119(2)(b) of the I.T.Act, which deserves to be set aside.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents-Revenue would support the impugned order and submits that there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.
A perusal of the impugned order will indicate that the respondents have adopted hyper technical approach in refusing to condone the delay without appreciating that the inability and omission on the part of the petitioner to file I.T. returns within the prescribed period was due to prevailing Covid-19 pandemic, as a result of which petitioner filed I.T. returns subsequent to expiry of the prescribed period. The respondents failed to appreciate that the petitioner could not file his I.T. returns within the prescribed period on account of bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause, which clearly constituted genuine hardship on the part of the petitioner/assessee as contemplated in the said Circular dated 09.06.2015 and failure to appreciate this, has resulted in
- 4 -
NC: 2025:KHC:15383 WP No. 7851 of 2025
erroneous conclusion warranting interference by this Court in the present petition.
Under these circumstances, by adopting a justice oriented approach and having regard to valid and sufficient ground pleaded by the petitioner in support of his claim for condonation of delay, I deem it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned order and condone the delay in filing the returns by the petitioner by allowing the application filed by the petitioner. 7. In the result, I pass the following: O R D E R (i) The petition is hereby allowed. (ii) The impugned order at Annexure–D dated 16.12.2024 is hereby set-aside; (iii) The application filed by the petitioner under Section 119(2)(b) for condonation of delay of 17 days in filing Income Tax Returns for the Assessment Year 2021-22 is hereby allowed; (iv) The respondents are directed to accept the returns submitted by the petitioner for the aforesaid Assessment Year 2021-22;
- 5 -
NC: 2025:KHC:15383 WP No. 7851 of 2025
(v) It is needless to state that respondents are at liberty to verify the claim of the petitioner and proceed further in accordance with law.
Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE SV List No.: 2 Sl No.: 77
More judgments on Section 119(2)(b)
- Jijamata Mahila Gramin Bigar Sheti Sahakari… vs ITO Ward -1, BhandraITA 102/NAG/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed12 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Pushpa Chandra Raj Singhvi Charitable… vs CIT(Exemption), Income Tax Appellate TribunaITA 8820/MUM/2026[2026-27]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2026-27
- Pratik Deepak Agarwal, Lonavla vs Assessing Officer, Ward 9(3), Akurdi, PuneITA 2227/PUN/2026[2025-2026]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2025-2026
- Pushpa Bitan Friendship Society, Kolkata vs I.T.O., Ward - 1(4), Exemption, KolkataITA 2607/KOL/2026[2018-2019]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2018-2019
- Tiong Woon Project & Contracting Pte Ltd… vs ACIT, Intl. Taxn. Circle-2(2), ChennaiITA 1883/CHNY/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed25 Sept 2026AY 2013-14
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S.Ritika Ispat PVT. LTD.,Balanda, Sundergarh vs. The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes And Goods And Services Tax, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 4 Nov 2026
- Biswanath Pradhan vs. The Principal Commnr., CGST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 4 Nov 2026
- M/S.Ritika Ispat PVT. LTD.,Balanda, Sundergarh vs. The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes And Goods And Services Tax, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 4 Nov 2026
- M/S Shree Sai Jagannath, Rourkela, Sundargarh vs. Chief Commissioner, CGST, Central Excise And Customs, BhubaneswarOrissa · 4 Nov 2026
- M/S.Shree Construction, Khordha vs. The Principal Commissioner, CGST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 4 Nov 2026